you counted every bonus of civ 
but do it by comparison with other civs’s bonuses.
like mayans +1 villager, %15 lasting resources or chinese +3 villager and all techs cost less. with bulgarians you only saving 100 food for feudal, but +1 villager gathering 200-300 resources until castle age.
they don’t have any bonus to knight it is similar to magyars bonus, but magyars’s bonus is better with instant upgrade. yes they haven’t any bonus for castle age and only discount for sieges for “imperial age”. also no one using longsword
btw my list is my thoughts, i m okay if this things aren’t okay, my personal requests
Doesn’t matter if cavalry is bad, when you hit castle age 2 min before your opponent. Then you can flood him with knights.
Go watch so pro games with vikings. See why they use knights and then you understand why they’re not indeed, a bad civ, but pretty much the opposite
1 Like
yeah and really early imperial age everytime, it is really annoying
It’s funny that you mention Chinese and Mayan, because while they will have the upper hand early (Chinese eco should be easier to disrupt with m@a rush tho) the later you get in the game, the more they will feel the strenght of Bulgarian castle and imp bonuses. Especially since both civs don’t like facing siege onagers and Bulgarian have the easiest time of any civ actually getting them up and running.
ok noob, you will understand when you got more elo. also go play with them if you think they are too good, i played with them 300 match
Never said Vikings are bad. They are very good. But take their eco and there’s nothing left. That’s the issue with them.
You can call me noob as much as you want, if that makes you feel better. Look at pro plays from Bulgarians in recent tournaments and realise they are not as bad as you try to make them look.
2 Likes
I have the distinct feeling you spent those 300 games spamming knights without looking at their other options.
1 Like
i played man at arms+scout (skirms against archer civs) no one can beat bulgarians at feudal age. yeah i should play knight becuase they don’t have crossbow, only knights and longsword is meme unit. classic hun knights without %20 faster stables, only stirrups at min 30-35
Hidden Cup 4 stats - Google Sheets /i looked so what ? 11
2 pick as a counter for aztecs
redbull wololo a diffrent thing cause game mainly finishing at feudal age and bulgarians good only for feudal dominantation.
*please, who don’t know the game shouldn’t speak about balance of civs, keep it for +1400 elo
1400 elo is laughably low. Daves Controller troll Account is rated higher! If you want to exclude people who dont understand the game, you have to aim for at least 1900.
But this is an open forum, so everyone can have their voice. You should accept this instead of just insulting others.
2 Likes
1900+ is top 400 so … ? just playing aoe2, pro players. 1400 is player who understands mental of game, you don’t need to be top 400 professional aoe2 player to discussion game balance, but need to know something about game which is 1400 elo. How can the words of a" player who don’t know aoe" be important
Well one could argue that anyone can understand the game, after all elo depends on knowledge but also execution. You can know a great deal about the game but not have the APM or just the time to play and thus have a lower elo.
1 Like
Oh yeah I don’t understand the game because my clicks are slower and my buildorder execution is not perfect… Of course.
You know everyone above your elo could say the same about you. It’s not like your Elo means you’re a good player or know the game well. I guess with 2 hours preparation every sc2 pro beat you because his execution is better regardless of your “deep” knowledge of the game. And it’s not like your loved Bulgarians are the only civ struggling against a and s tiers.
And why is 1400 that magic number? Is it because you are just a bit above that rating?
Let me reiterate on the point i made before: A speedrunner/caster (not a pro!) can beat a 1400 player WITHOUT ANY MICRO (as he plays with a controller just to troll). If players around 1400 understood the game, this would not be possible. But it is. So players around 1400 are either that bad at microing you can outmicro them without a mouse or their game sense is lacking severly.
Either way, 1400 is definitly too low of a bar to talk about proper game knowledge.
Yes, thats true. Thats actually what i am arguing for: Anyone can discuss it, its just that many people will then say stupid stuff. But this is a forum on the internet, so what do we expect…
However, if we were to introduce a bar above with people do know their stuff about AoE2, it would have to be around 1900 (maybe 1800ish works as well). Any rating lower than that can be reached by a fast player with precise micro and a few prelearnt BOs, but no deep understanding of the game. Hell, i reached 1700 and i just recently learnt chevalier have 2 pa (somehow i was always convinced it was 3).
1 Like
Which just proves my point 11
1 Like
I still have no idea how Indians will counter heavy infantry and eagles in castle to early Imperial age
Infantry they have crossbows and cav archers. Eagles there best option is militia line
just outproduce your enemy. Even if you take fights with a bad k/d, Eagles are too expensive to maintain for long in a 1v1. In team game, call in an ally.